L
One of the ways we looked at effectiveness was the number of N/C's our internal audits found on a given element, or more at, with a given procedural requirement. We looked if there was a "more effective" way of meeting the requirement. For example, if a department seemed to have trouble with maintaining the product identification procedure, was there a more "effective" way. Simpler ID methodology, or whatever.
The effectiveness often led to procedural changes that were suggested at Management Review meetings.
I don't know if your are QS, or ISO, but we had a PPAP procedure for internal parts. We were forever negligent on engineering change level requirements (parts would get changed, but documentation was delinquent.) We had a procedure, but it wasn't very "effective" in accomplishing the task. We brainstormed, streamlined, and developed a easier to manage system, that became "more effective."
I do not know if that fully meets the intentions of the standard, but those are 2 examples I remember that worked for our quality system "effectiveness" requirement.
Not sure what your auditor meant by the "scope of your audit providing the data", but may be leading to "systemic correcive action", and verification activities, not just taking care of a minor without looking whether it could happen elsewhere. To me that is more of a mgmt. review function rather than audit scope issue, but I may be misunderstanding when he/she meant.
The effectiveness often led to procedural changes that were suggested at Management Review meetings.
I don't know if your are QS, or ISO, but we had a PPAP procedure for internal parts. We were forever negligent on engineering change level requirements (parts would get changed, but documentation was delinquent.) We had a procedure, but it wasn't very "effective" in accomplishing the task. We brainstormed, streamlined, and developed a easier to manage system, that became "more effective."
I do not know if that fully meets the intentions of the standard, but those are 2 examples I remember that worked for our quality system "effectiveness" requirement.
Not sure what your auditor meant by the "scope of your audit providing the data", but may be leading to "systemic correcive action", and verification activities, not just taking care of a minor without looking whether it could happen elsewhere. To me that is more of a mgmt. review function rather than audit scope issue, but I may be misunderstanding when he/she meant.